BBC Panorama on Labour anti-Semitism

[oates]

Again, you're just posting proof that this is antisemitic. You're being wilfully ignorant to it I feel. Its layered in antisemitic tropes and even Corbyn held his hands up to it once called out on it.

Good grief. If you see anti-semitic tropes in that mural perhaps it says something more about you than the mural does.

Honestly, you want to create a discussion piece about the banking elite, you be all inclusive and include people whatever their culture or religion and the next thing you know it is all about them.

Corbyn defended the right of the artist to paint it, I didn't know that he slept every night wrapped in a copy.

Where have I defended it being anti-semitic?

 

[Kentonio]

Good grief. If you see anti-semitic tropes in that mural perhaps it says something more about you than the mural does.

Don't want to step in the middle of you guys, but I saw anti-semitic tropes in that mural the second I looked at it.

 

[oates]

Don't want to step in the middle of you guys, but I saw anti-semitic tropes in that mural the second I looked at it.

Again, maybe seeing what you want to but the Morgans and Rockefellers aren't jewish.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Again, maybe seeing what you want to but the Morgans and Rockefellers aren't jewish.

I addressed this in my previous post. The artist latterly said that it's Anglo and Jewish bankers which is part of the Jewish conspiracy and how they have supposedly been controlling the world through powerful Anglo and Western nations. This was literally part of Nazi ideology on Jewish people that led to the holocaust.

 

[Kentonio]

Again, maybe seeing what you want to but the Morgans and Rockefellers aren't jewish.

No, he just used some quite vile Jewish visual stereotypes to denote the bankers supposedly controlling the world, a false accusation that has been levelled at the Jewish for centuries. But its ok because it wasn't really a group of Jews he was painting, honest?

Actually I'm being harsh there, the artist might have genuinely not had an anti-semitic thought in his head when he painted that, but whether it was conscious or subconscious, he sure as hell channeled some anti-semitism.

*Edit* Just saw @Classical Mechanic's reply. Ok, the artist definitely wasn't just doing it subconsciously then..

 

[oates]

I addressed this in my previous post. The artist latterly said that it's Anglo and Jewish bankers which is part of the Jewish conspiracy and how they have supposedly been controlling the world through powerful Anglo and Western nations. This was literally part of Nazi ideology on Jewish people that led to the holocaust.

The artist said his painting was about Class and Privilege.

I suppose when you are inclusive and don't go out of your way not to include certain people when creating something then you are open to people maintaining that your work is all about them.

This is the same problem we will always have whether talking about the Banking Elite or Palestine and it is oh so important for some people to describe it as something else altogether.

 

[oates]

No, he just used some quite vile Jewish visual stereotypes to denote the bankers supposedly controlling the world, a false accusation that has been levelled at the Jewish for centuries. But its ok because it wasn't really a group of Jews he was painting, honest?

Actually I'm being harsh there, the artist might have genuinely not had an anti-semitic thought in his head when he painted that, but whether it was conscious or subconscious, he sure as hell channeled some anti-semitism.

*Edit* Just saw @Classical Mechanic's reply. Ok, the artist definitely wasn't just doing it subconsciously then..

I'm sorry, I think you are using something quite historic to make your lost point.

 

[ZupZup]

My issue with the whole mural thing is many of the very same people who condemn it as being hugely antisemitic, largely since the Corbyn incident... I have seen also defend J.K Rowling's depiction of the hook-nosed goblin bankers in the Harry Potter books.

Two examples of basically the same trope being used and objectively speaking... on a par with each other really. People will attack one and defend the other which tells me it is more about scoring political points which unfortunately, is what the whole debate has largely become - on both sides.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

The artist said his painting was about Class and Privilege.

I suppose when you are inclusive and don't go out of your way not to include certain people when creating something then you are open to people maintaining that your work is all about them.

This is the same problem we will always have whether talking about the Banking Elite or Palestine and it is oh so important for some people to describe it as something else altogether.

The meeting point for the far left and far right is the Jewish Conspiracy. Factions of both believe that the Jews rule the world by controlling powerful banking institutions and governments. From the left viewpoint that drives the unequal society in which we live.

My issue with the whole mural thing is many of the very same people who condemn it as being hugely antisemitic, largely since the Corbyn incident... I have seen also defend J.K Rowling's depiction of the hook-nosed goblin bankers in the Harry Potter books.

Two examples of basically the same trope being used and objectively speaking... on a par with each other really. People will attack one and defend the other which tells me it is more about scoring political points which unfortunately, is what the whole debate has largely become - on both sides.

I'm not up with Harry Potter but the mural features many more antisemitic tropes.

 

[oates]

The meeting point for the far left and far right is the Jewish Conspiracy. Factions of both believe that the Jews rule the world by controlling powerful banking institutions and governments. From the left viewpoint that drives the unequal society in which we live.

I just believe that the Banking Elite is part of the control of wealth and corruption. It's interesting to me that Donald's favourite laundry of choice is undergoing restructuring as well as investigation.

Some Jewish people are also bankers.

We don't all have that certain ulterior motive. We just don't need it. Isn't the state of poverty not just in Third World countries a big enough motive?

 

[Classical Mechanic]

I just believe that the Banking Elite is part of the control of wealth and corruption. It's interesting to me that Donald's favourite laundry of choice is undergoing restructuring as well as investigation.

Some Jewish people are also bankers.

We don't all have that certain ulterior motive. We just don't need it. Isn't the state of poverty not just in Third World countries a big enough motive?

That's all an aside. It doesn't negate the fact that the mural is massively antisemitic. The artist even said that Rothschild is in the mural and that the bankers are 'Jewish and Anglo'. The Rothschilds are perceived to be the absolute key player in the Jewish conspiracy. When you add the hook noses, the all seeing eye and new world order references you just have something that is very racist and promoting a narrative that has seen the Jews oppressed for centuries.

 

[oates]

That's all an aside. It doesn't negate the fact that the mural is massively antisemitic. The artist even said that Rothschild is in the mural and that the bankers are 'Jewish and Anglo'. The Rothschilds are perceived to be the absolute key player in the Jewish conspiracy.

Seems to me that there are a lot of coincidences when talking about banking if you really intend to spend your life looking for them.

 

[ZupZup]

I'm not up with Harry Potter but the mural features many more antisemitic tropes.

Ok, so what is the level that makes one ok and the other not? Two antisemitic tropes are ok... but 3 or 4 and it's beyond the threshold?

Why is this so different from the sort of imagery you might see on Nazi propaganda?

 

[oates]

Ok, so what is the level that makes one ok and the other not? Two antisemitic tropes are ok... but 3 or 4 and it's beyond the threshold?

Why is this so different from the sort of imagery you might see on Nazi propaganda?

Too many coincidences. Need to hear from the artist.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Seems to me that there are a lot of coincidences when talking about banking if you really intend to spend your life looking for them.

You can reference the inequality of society through economic and political oppression without including antisemitic tropes and referencing conspiracy theories that have led to the genocide of Jewish people.

Ok, so what is the level that makes one ok and the other not? Two antisemitic tropes are ok... but 3 or 4 and it's beyond the threshold?

Why is this so different from the sort of imagery you might see on Nazi propaganda?

It's egregious but I've never said its OK.

 

[oates]

You can reference the inequality of society through economic and political oppression without including antisemitic tropes and referencing conspiracy theories that have led to the genocide of Jewish people.

The artist did, he explained it so, some people just won't agree.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

The artist did, he explained it so, some people just won't agree.

Sorry Oates but he did include antisemitic tropes and referenced the kind of conspiracy theories that have led to the genocide of Jewish people.

Maybe you should research these conspiracy theories a bit.

 

[oates]

Sorry Oates but he did include antisemitic tropes and referenced the kind of conspiracy theories that have led to the genocide of Jewish people.

Maybe you should research these conspiracy theories a bit.

Sorry but they are also present for the Banking Elite. You unfortunately have taken a work of art and interpreted it seeing coincidence, that's all.

And how is it all related to the Labour Party anyway? Corbyn defended his right to paint it. It's probably time we moved on but we could do this to death a bit more.

 

[2cents]

Here’s the totally not antisemitic artist in question recommending David Icke on the Rothschilds:

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Sorry but they are also present for the Banking Elite. You unfortunately have taken a work of art and interpreted it seeing coincidence, that's all.

And how is it all related to the Labour Party anyway? Corbyn defended his right to paint it. It's probably time we moved on but we could do this to death a bit more.

Again Oates, I feel you are being wilfully ignorant on this point.

Corbyn immediately apologised when called out on it saying that he didn't look close enough at an obviously antisemitic mural.

Its an example of Corbyn being blind to antisemitism from a faction of the left I guess. That said, I'm not arguing against Corbyn here. I'll give him a pass because he's so bloody avuncular and benign. I'm simply arguing that the mural is antisemitic.

 

[oates]

Again Oates, I feel you are being wilfully ignorant on this point.

Corbyn immediately apologised when called out on it saying that he didn't look close enough at an obviously antisemitic mural.

Its an example of Corbyn being blind to antisemitism from a faction of the left I guess. That said, I'm not arguing against Corbyn here. I'll give him a pass because he's so bloody avuncular and benign. I'm simply arguing that the mural is antisemitic.

Done a bit more to death and apparently the Labour Party are off the hook. What a waste of a morning.

 

[Sassy Colin]

If he wanted to depict bankers, he should have depicted them with red braces and striped shirts and big teeth, which would have been far more relevant to modern times.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

if anyone has 15 minutes to spend: This is a pretty good article regarding the Brick Lane Mural. Discussion of the mural's antisemitic character starts about half way through, just after the author's defence of Corbyn concludes. For what it's worth I perceived it as anti-semitic based entirely upon the features of the bankers and the fact that it was presented to me as an example of anti-semitism when I first saw it.

If you can't be arsed with the article, the conclusion is basically that the artist is a conspiracy nut in the mould of David Icke, whom he reveres and whose site he's been known to contribute to. Apparently in 2016 he produced a revised version of the mural:

Spoiler

The seated figures are David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski (together the founders of the trilateral commission), Evelyn and Jacob Rothschild, George Soros and Nicky Oppenheimer. The four ghosts behind them feature two more Rothschilds, Adam Weishaupt (the founder of the Illuminati) and Albert Pike (a freemason). That's four Rothschild's and five Jew's out of ten (seven by heritage - Weishaupt and Oppenheimer being descended from Jewish>Christian converts) forming or influencing a shadowy cabal that terrorises mankind for private gain.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

I just watched this.

It is one of the funniest and yet infuriating things I have ever watched. Nobody with a brain cell can possibly take it as anything more than a poorly attempted hatchet job.

Yes BBC there might actually be an issue within the party, but cherry picking parts of emails without adding context, not naming any names except one member that was banished and of course, KenLivingstone. Taking the mural completely out of context (were the Jewish because they had big noses? If so, who is the racist considering the artist said it depicted the Rothschild and elite bankers dining out from working classes, yes, I’m aware the Rothschilds are Jewish, but I dislike and disagree with Trump it doesn’t mean I hate Americans) and generally insulting everybody’s intelligence by adding no evidence at all.

Pointless hatchet job.

Yeah I never understood the crazy idea that Mear's mural was "anti-semitic". Those critiques are the same logical format of calling a satire of Trump "anti-American" or "anti-Christian".

Its interesting because about 25 years ago I met Mear and had many conversations about these exact topics. I was working a booth for a friend at this enormous clothing industry convention in Las Vegas and Mear was working in the booth next to ours. Over the weekend we had a lot of long, crazy conversations. I have a pretty good idea of what he believes and its not antisemitic in any way. There are caricatures of the Rothschilds sure but also the Rockefellers. The power elites that cause a helluva lot of ills in the world irrespective of what their ostensible connection is to a specific religion. I know tons of Jewish counter-culture kids that believe the exact same things Mear believes. I wonder if the conservatives are going to call them "self-hating antisemitic Jews" or whatever they do.

Back in the 80s/90s counterculture of West and East Coast USA (hippies, punks, ravers) the Rothschilds were not seen as "Jewish" but rather part of the power elites. Once people reach that level of power elite, most of us poor people only saw them as power elite whether they were Rothschilds, the House of Saud, the Morgans and Rockefellers or the British Royal Family. They are their own group at that point. They aren't seen through the modern identity politics lens of race or religion. Their only identity is self-interested power elite. It starts and stops there.

They were all perceived as part of the exact network that causes problems. Its Anglo-American (and their allies like House of Saud) focused because that's what poor Americans know. Poor Americans in the 80s/90s simply had no clue about who the worst power elites of Asia or Eastern Europe were but they did know the masons and those famous Western banking families.

Its hard for me to even imagine a mindset where people instantly see "antisemitism" there. All I see is a critique of capitalism.

Its just a newer version of this:

Here are all the Illuminati groups. BTW this game company, Steve Jackson Games was raided by the FBI.

People still believe in conspiracy tropes because the government and power elites' actions.


--

The biggest problem with Mear and a lot of the people like him is that they are victims of the long anti-intellectualism of the USA. My younger idealistic self used to engage people like that because I thought they were just one step away from being like Eboue or Red Dreams. But they aren't and their problem is not at all "antisemitism". Its anti-intellectualism and a lack of epistemological maturity thus leaving them gullible and instead of evolving into an Eboue they devolve into a David Ickes moron.

 

[finneh]

In the vast majority of perceived instances of racism, the first thing the majority of forward thinking people say is listen to the group that feels they're the victims of the perceived racism. It seems with anti-semitism the first thing the same people seem to say is listen to whomever can use whatever mental gymnastics possible to either justify the (non)issue or denounce it as a falsehood or conspiracy. Likewise when it comes to this issue in any other situation the first response certainly isn't to point to another group and engage in cynical whataboutery and even threaten whistleblowers with the enforcement of NDO's, as well as telling the people taking it seriously to resign.

Could you imagine after the train incident involving Chelsea fans in Paris pushing a black guy off the train if the first response was other Chelsea fans stating every possible reason that their fellow fans could be pushing him that didn't involve racist overtones? Then when enquiries and prosecutions followed stating that it was a French conspiracy to make their fans look bad? Likewise could you imagine Chelsea FC engaging in whataboutery by pointing out that Millwall fans had been far worse in terms of racism historically? Could you finally imagine numerous Chelsea players tweeting for the Chelsea vice captain to quit because he stood in solidarity against the clubs inaction? It would be met with horror and disbelief.

 

[Sweet Square]

The biggest problem with Mear and a lot of the people like him is that they are victims of the long anti-intellectualism of the USA. My younger idealistic self used to engage people like that because I thought they were just one step away from being like Eboue or Red Dreams. But they aren't and their problem is not at all "antisemitism". Its anti-intellectualism and a lack of epistemological maturity thus leaving them gullible and instead of evolving into an Eboue they devolve into a David Ickes moron.

Anti semitism is the socialism of fools. - August Bebel

Could you imagine after the train incident involving Chelsea fans in Paris pushing a black guy off the train if the first response was other Chelsea fans stating every possible reason that their fellow fans could be pushing him that didn't involve racist overtones? Then when enquiries and prosecutions followed stating that it was a French conspiracy to make their fans look bad? Likewise could you imagine Chelsea FC engaging in whataboutery by pointing out that Millwall fans had been far worse in terms of racism historically? Could you finally imagine numerous Chelsea players tweeting for the Chelsea vice captain to quit because he stood in solidarity against the clubs inaction? It would be met with horror and disbelief.

Football analogies never make any sense and are always stupid. But just to play along, if Chelsea football club continuously denounced racism, banned supports who were found doing racist things, adopted the most anti racist policy of all english football clubs. Would you still think Roman Abramovich has to step down from head of the club ?

 

[Cheesy]

The mural is quite obviously anti-semitic and the fact that Corbyn wasn't able to see it as such initially was clearly problematic. If we can't even acknowledge that then I think it highlights the stark nature of the problem.

 

[Cheesy]

Yeah I never understood the crazy idea that Mear's mural was "anti-semitic". Those critiques are the same logical format of calling a satire of Trump "anti-American" or "anti-Christian".

Its interesting because about 25 years ago I met Mear and had many conversations about these exact topics. I was working a booth for a friend at this enormous clothing industry convention in Las Vegas and Mear was working in the booth next to ours. Over the weekend we had a lot of long, crazy conversations. I have a pretty good idea of what he believes and its not antisemitic in any way. There are caricatures of the Rothschilds sure but also the Rockefellers. The power elites that cause a helluva lot of ills in the world irrespective of what their ostensible connection is to a specific religion. I know tons of Jewish counter-culture kids that believe the exact same things Mear believes. I wonder if the conservatives are going to call them "self-hating antisemitic Jews" or whatever they do.

Back in the 80s/90s counterculture of West and East Coast USA (hippies, punks, ravers) the Rothschilds were not seen as "Jewish" but rather part of the power elites. Once people reach that level of power elite, most of us poor people only saw them as power elite whether they were Rothschilds, the House of Saud, the Morgans and Rockefellers or the British Royal Family. They are their own group at that point. They aren't seen through the modern identity politics lens of race or religion. Their only identity is self-interested power elite. It starts and stops there.

They were all perceived as part of the exact network that causes problems. Its Anglo-American (and their allies like House of Saud) focused because that's what poor Americans know. Poor Americans in the 80s/90s simply had no clue about who the worst power elites of Asia or Eastern Europe were but they did know the masons and those famous Western banking families.

Its hard for me to even imagine a mindset where people instantly see "antisemitism" there. All I see is a critique of capitalism.

Its just a newer version of this:

This doesn't really work though because Americans aren't really a minority group who have been persecuted in the same way the Jewish population typically has been for centuries. Similarly while Christians obviously have been it's quite difficult to gather them into one sect in the same way the Jewish population often have been when discriminated against.

The intention/reality thing may precisely be the problem here - even if Mear didn't intend for it to be anti-semitic (and that's a stretch) it's quite clearly playing up to the notion of greedy Jewish bankers who control society from above. The idea it's simply a 'critique of capitalism' alone is again where things become murky because this can become a convenient way for people who are anti-semitic to instead insist that they're merely critiquing society instead. The Rothschilds may be seen as part of the power elite but look through any dodgy conspiracy website with anti-semites and there tends to be an almost irrational focus on the likes of them and on people like Soros who has similarly been targeted because he is Jewish, with the fall-back caveat instead often being that they're targeting his wealth.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

This doesn't really work though because Americans aren't really a minority group who have been persecuted in the same way the Jewish population typically has been for centuries. Similarly while Christians obviously have been it's quite difficult to gather them into one sect in the same way the Jewish population often have been when discriminated against.

The intention/reality thing may precisely be the problem here - even if Mear didn't intend for it to be anti-semitic (and that's a stretch) it's quite clearly playing up to the notion of greedy Jewish bankers who control society from above. The idea it's simply a 'critique of capitalism' alone is again where things become murky because this can become a convenient way for people who are anti-semitic to instead insist that they're merely critiquing society instead. The Rothschilds may be seen as part of the power elite but look through any dodgy conspiracy website with anti-semites and there tends to be an almost irrational focus on the likes of them and on people like Soros who has similarly been targeted because he is Jewish, with the fall-back caveat instead often being that they're targeting his wealth.

I don't think I have the time and energy to really do this topic justice.

I feel like this is something that could have sparked a week of discussion in my social psych or cognitive linguistics seminars. It's also tricky because I have my own issues with this specific type of mindset from certain specific subcultures that I am wary of being misunderstood and getting frustrated myself.

The mural is quite obviously anti-semitic and the fact that Corbyn wasn't able to see it as such initially was clearly problematic. If we can't even acknowledge that then I think it highlights the stark nature of the problem.

The bluntness of this assertion is what I have a hard time wrapping my head around. If you said "The mural contains some anti-semitic tropes along with other imagery" then that would be one thing but the level of certainty being ascribed is really odd to me. There are levels of nuance I feel are being completely missed here. When I look at it I see dozens of anti-capitalist imagery and only one or two things in the first piece like the big noses which could be controversial. The updated version looks packed with anti-capitalist imagery and the noses are gone so its hard for me to ignore/override all that imagery to accept whatever "anti-semitic imagery" still exists defines the pieces as "clearly anti-semitic". How could he have changed it so you personally would not view it as anti-semitic?

I think this is one case where the cultural experience of people in London/UK compared to Los Angeles/California is so drastically different for cases like this a mutually beneficial discussions really needs to take a step back and break things down instead of leaping to judgment and argument. Reference-dependent preferences are real. My analysis would be that my reference points from Los Angeles/San Francisco in the early 90s are so drastically different than someone in the UK on this topic that its not really fair to just throw out accusations without stepping back a little.

It wasn't until I was maybe 28-29 that I even knew the Rothschilds were Jewish. For the longest time (pre-Google age) I would've said the Rothschilds were simply a German banking family allied with the global elites. (In high school I thought the Rothschilds were British but an older kid told me they were German - we had a teacher with that last name). For a lot people that grew up poor in secular California (especially pre-internet age of 80s/90s) they simply didn't realize or recognize religious or ethnic differences the way you seem primed to recognize. During my 20s I wouldn't have made any distinction between the Rothschilds, House of Saud, Rockefellers and Vanderbilts, British Royal Family and aristocracy,etc based on modern identity politics. They were all power elites and that's it. Oh another one is Haim Saban. When I first encountered him I thought he was Japanese because the context was he was the rich jerk bringing Power Rangers to America.

In other words their economic status was so much more relevant that its hard to even see those people as sharing any type of human experience let alone the experience of the average Jewish, Muslim or Church of England. Even now, I totally respect your point of view but the notion that a critique of the Rothschilds represents a critique/disparagement of Jewish people in general sounds just as weird and off (for lack of a better word) to me as seeing an art piece critical of the Kardashians negative influence on culture as being being anti-Armenian just because it contained big butts.

I hope that makes sense. I doubt I can ever feel the way you do about this. But I can respect the learning exchange.

 

[2cents]

Its hard for me to even imagine a mindset where people instantly see "antisemitism" there

Conversely, it’s hard for me to understand how anyone with a basic knowledge of how antisemitism works would need more than about ten seconds to see the image for what it is.

The biggest problem with Mear and a lot of the people like him is that they are victims of the long anti-intellectualism of the USA. My younger idealistic self used to engage people like that because I thought they were just one step away from being like Eboue or Red Dreams. But they aren't and their problem is not at all "antisemitism". Its anti-intellectualism and a lack of epistemological maturity thus leaving them gullible and instead of evolving into an Eboue they devolve into a David Ickes moron.

Sorry, these are responsible adults you’re talking about here, no? I’m sure they all have a story behind how they became convinced that the Rothschilds control the world, no less than a Charlottesville marcher has a story behind his determination that there’s a global conspiracy to replace the white race. There might even be broader lessons to be learned from those stories, but we don’t typically excuse the individuals with a ‘boys will be boys’ get-out clause. They own their positions and actions.

the notion that a critique of the Rothschilds represents a critique/disparagement of Jewish people in general sounds just as weird and off (for lack of a better word) to me as seeing smack talk of the Kardashians negative influence on culture as being being anti-Armenian.

There is a long, global, bloody history behind Rothschild/Jewish bankers/Jews+money tropes. Even being extremely generous and accepting the idea that Mear is somehow ignorant/innocent of all the connotations prevalent in the image (something I find laughable applied to a person who describes David Icke as their ‘hero’), since when is ignorance an excuse when it comes to racism? We’ve had threads on the Cafe on the blackface issue, where one poster after another has come on claiming they never knew it was such a big issue, only for it to be pointed out to them that they have a responsibility to understand this stuff. Or at least to hold their hands up upon learning about it and accept that it’s not cool. Which in fairness to him, in this case Corbyn seemed to do when it was pointed out to him.

 

[finneh]

Football analogies never make any sense and are always stupid. But just to play along, if Chelsea football club continuously denounced racism, banned supports who were found doing racist things, adopted the most anti racist policy of all english football clubs. Would you still think Roman Abramovich has to step down from head of the club ?

My aforementioned examples would be a complete contradiction of a club that were adopting such strict anti-racist policies. That in addition to the numerous affected groups denouncing the club's actions would lead me to believe that their show of public anti-racism was a show than anything truly meaningful (which would echo the sentiments expressed by some of the Jewish leaders that have met Corbyn).

I didn't mention Corbyn stepping down. Although the fact that after so long this is still an issue is gross incompetence. The only way to tackle this kind of issue is to take the ultimate strong stance; but even this week the top team's berating of their deputy for speaking out against this issue is proof they're more bothered about PR than tackling the issue.

 

[Cheesy]

The bluntness of this assertion is what I have a hard time wrapping my head around. If you said "The mural contains some anti-semitic tropes along with other imagery" then that would be one thing but the level of certainty being ascribed is really odd to me. There are levels of nuance I feel are being completely missed here.

If someone had made a mural that was blatantly racist against, say, African Americans then I'd call it out as being racist - even if there were other potential critiques or analyses in there. Because, rightfully, the fact that it's racist is obviously going to be the most important thing about it. I'm not sure there's really much nuance needed about the mural itself because on some topics it's fine to be blunt - it's littered with anti-semitic imagery, plays on anti-semitic tropes, and was made by someone who's got a fairly dodgy history when it comes to anti-semitism. I'm not sure what else is needed here? The "capitalism" critique doesn't work here for me because it's such a convenient get-out clause for anti-semites to be able to use when perpetrating such imagery. I can't comment on when/where the Rothschild dogwhistle originated but it's been around for a good while, and most people recognise that the crude depictions of them are almost always utilised in such a way as to be anti-semitic. Similar to how Soros is targeted now.

It's not the critique of wealth that's the problem - it's the fact that prominent Jewish families tend to be targeted in particular to perpetrate the idea that Jews are disproportionately part of a global elite that controls society, and by extension they are particularly sinister and shady when doing so - again this goes back to Soros, who is stereotyped as shady and sneaky in how he distributes his money when in actual fact he's often been fairly open about the campaigns he's involved in and the political causes and agendas he is trying to further.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Conversely, it’s hard for me to understand how anyone with a basic knowledge of how antisemitism works would need more than about ten seconds to see the image for what it is.

Sorry, these are responsible adults you’re talking about here, no? I’m sure they all have a story behind how they became convinced that the Rothschilds control the world, no less than a Charlottesville marcher has a story behind his determination that there’s a global conspiracy to replace the white race. There might even be broader lessons to be learned from those stories, but we don’t typically excuse the individuals with a ‘boys will be boys’ get-out clause. They own their positions and actions.

There is a long, global, bloody history behind Rothschild/Jewish bankers/Jews+money tropes. Even being extremely generous and accepting the idea that Mear is somehow ignorant/innocent of all the connotations prevalent in the image (something I find laughable applied to a person who describes David Icke as their ‘hero’), since when is ignorance an excuse when it comes to racism? We’ve had threads on the Cafe on the blackface issue, where one poster after another has come on claiming they never knew it was such a big issue, only for it to be pointed out to them that they have a responsibility to understand this stuff. Or at least to hold their hands up upon learning about it and accept that it’s not cool. Which in fairness to him, in this case Corbyn seemed to do when it was pointed out to him.

What's your experience on the epistemological background of street culture among poor undereducated kids from Los Angeles in the 1990s? That obscure Nazi literature was nowhere near US school curriculum in the 80s/90s? I didn't start seeing literature like that until the 2000s after Google. Most people I know associate big noses on rich bankers with Mr Burns from the Simpsons.

Same question though, how could he have changed it so you personally would not view it as anti-semitic?

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

If someone had made a mural that was blatantly racist against, say, African Americans then I'd call it out as being racist - even if there were other potential critiques or analyses in there. Because, rightfully, the fact that it's racist is obviously going to be the most important thing about it. I'm not sure there's really much nuance needed about the mural itself because on some topics it's fine to be blunt - it's littered with anti-semitic imagery, plays on anti-semitic tropes, and was made by someone who's got a fairly dodgy history when it comes to anti-semitism. I'm not sure what else is needed here? The "capitalism" critique doesn't work here for me because it's such a convenient get-out clause for anti-semites to be able to use when perpetrating such imagery. I can't comment on when/where the Rothschild dogwhistle originated but it's been around for a good while, and most people recognise that the crude depictions of them are almost always utilised in such a way as to be anti-semitic. Similar to how Soros is targeted now.

It's not the critique of wealth that's the problem - it's the fact that prominent Jewish families tend to be targeted in particular to perpetrate the idea that Jews are disproportionately part of a global elite that controls society, and by extension they are particularly sinister and shady when doing so - again this goes back to Soros, who is stereotyped as shady and sneaky in how he distributes his money when in actual fact he's often been fairly open about the campaigns he's involved in and the political causes and agendas he is trying to further.

How could he have changed it so you personally would not view it as anti-semitic?
I keep hearing people saying say things like blatant but the only detail I hear mentioned as blatant is the big noses, which were corrected.

So what are the specific details in the second piece that make it so blatant.

At this point its hard for me to understand how he could have re-worked to satisfy this. Is it the ratio that's the problem? So if there were more House of Saud, JP Morgan, Queen of England that would seem less "Jewish focused" ?

I still have a hard time seeing the Rothschilds as representative of Jewish people in general. That is oddly like seeing negative critique of the Kardashians as Anti-Armenian.

 

[Sweet Square]

My aforementioned examples would be a complete contradiction of a club that were adopting such strict anti-racist policies. That in addition to the numerous affected groups denouncing the club's actions would lead me to believe that their show of public anti-racism was a show than anything truly meaningful (which would echo the sentiments expressed by some of the Jewish leaders that have met Corbyn).

Honest question labour adopting the IHRA in full(Which I don't think any other party has done)meaningless ?

 

[Cheesy]

How could he have changed it so you personally would not view it as anti-semitic?
I keep hearing people saying say things like blatant but the only detail I hear mentioned as blatant is the big noses, which were corrected.

So what are the specific details in the second piece that make it so blatant.

At this point its hard for me to understand how he could have re-worked to satisfy this UK mindset. Is it the ratio that's the problem?

But...the problem is that it's anti-semitic in the first place. If someone made a mural that was blatantly discriminating against African Americans, my primary concern would be that it's there in the first place, not how it can be amended or improved.

If he were some well-intentioned artist who'd made a mistake I would understand, but we've seen above that the guy loves Icke and has no problem engaging with and enjoying blatantly anti-semitic stuff.

 

[2cents]

What's your experience on the epistemological background of street culture among poor undereducated kids from Los Angeles in the 1990s? That obscure Nazi literature was nowhere near US school curriculum in the 80s/90s? I didn't start seeing literature like that until the 2000s after Google.

According to Wikipedia he painted this mural in 2012, aged 40/41 years old (5/6 years older than I am now).

how could he have changed it so you personally would not view it as anti-semitic?

He could have left the wall blank (I’m not from the UK btw).

 

[Cheesy]

How could he have changed it so you personally would not view it as anti-semitic?
I keep hearing people saying say things like blatant but the only detail I hear mentioned as blatant is the big noses, which were corrected.

So what are the specific details in the second piece that make it so blatant.

At this point its hard for me to understand how he could have re-worked to satisfy this. Is it the ratio that's the problem? So if there were more House of Saud, JP Morgan, Queen of England that would seem less "Jewish focused" ?

I still have a hard time seeing the Rothschilds as representative of Jewish people in general. That is oddly like seeing negative critique of the Kardashians as Anti-Armenian.

Come on, man - there's an extensive history of the Rothschilds being used as anti-semitic bait under the guise of critiquing the rich, the analogy just isn't the same at all, unless I've missed an underground conspiracy to stereotype the Kardashians as being the worst aspects of Armenian culture etc for political purposes.

 

[ZupZup]

The only way to tackle this kind of issue is to take the ultimate strong stance; but even this week the top team's berating of their deputy for speaking out against this issue is proof they're more bothered about PR than tackling the issue.

Why are you completely misrepresenting why people are angry at Tom Watson? They are angry because he came out publicly demanding to receive information that he had already been offered in private. He did so purely to make it seem like his colleagues were being obstructive when they weren’t. During a meeting about it, he sat twiddling his thumbs and kept silent when asked if he had any questions. It’s not the first time he has publicly criticised this colleague either and it is starting to look very much like workplace bullying. Why can he not behave like an adult and air his grievances with this individual in person rather than sub tweeting them like a man child?

His actions are of someone that doesn’t actually care about antisemitism... but does care about the damaging PR he can cause the leadership of the party by using it as a political football.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

According to Wikipedia he painted this mural in 2012, aged 40/41 years old (5/6 years older than I am now).

He could have left the wall blank (I’m not from the UK btw).

See I ask an honest question and I get snarky bullshit. If you can't take the time to show some respect to a genuine question then maybe you should leave your post blank as you contributed nothing meaningful to this thread so far. But good shit talking I guess